Use of ABC/2 method for rapidly estimating the target mismatch on computed tomography perfusion imaging in patients with acute ischemic stroke. (January 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Shen, Guang-Chen; Chu, Yue; Ma, Gao; Xu, Xiao-Quan; Lu, Shan-Shan; Shi, Hai-Bin; Wu, Fei-Yun
• Is Part Of: Acta radiologica. Volume 64:Number 1(2023)
• Page Start: 320
• Page End: 327
• Publication Date: 2023-01
• Subjects: Acute ischemic stroke -- computed tomography -- perfusion -- target mismatch -- ABC/2 method; Radiology, Medical -- Periodicals; Radiography, Medical -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1177/02841851211069778
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0284-1851

Abstract

Background: Target mismatch (ischemic core, mismatch volume and mismatch ratio) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) highly relies on the automated perfusion analysis software. Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of using the ABC/2 method to rapidly estimate the target mismatch on computed tomography perfusion (CTP) imaging in patients with AIS, using RAPID results as a reference. Material and Methods: In total, 243 patients with anterior circulation AIS who underwent CTP imaging were retrospectively reviewed. Target mismatch associated perfusion parameters were derived from RAPID results and calculated using the ABC/2 method. Paired t -test was used to assess the difference of volumetric parameters between the two methods. The ability of using the ABC/2 method to predict the important cutoff volumetric metrics was also evaluated. Result: There was no significant difference in the volumes of ischemic core ( P = 0.068), ischemic area ( P = 0.209), and mismatch volume ( P = 0.518) between ABC/2 and RAPID. Using RAPID results as reference, the ABC/2 method showed high accuracy for predicting perfusion parameters (70 mL and 90 mL: sensitivity=98.5% and 98.5%, specificity=100% and 100%, positive predictive value [PPV]=100% and 100%, negative predictive value [NPV]=93.8% and 92.9%; 10 mL and 15mL: sensitivity=99.6% and 99.5%, specificity=55.6% and 50.0%, PPV=96.6% and 94.8%, NPV=90.9% and 92.3%; 1.2 and 1.8: sensitivity=99.6% and 94.8%, specificity=75.0% and 96.9%, PPV=98.7% and 99.5%, NPV=90.0% and 73.8%). Conclusion: The ABC/2 method may be a feasible alternative to RAPID for estimation of target mismatch parameters on CTP in patients with AIS.